A Critique on the Opposition to Anti-Discrimination House Bill 2661

On the subject of HB 2661 (thou shall not discriminate against thy homosexual future neighbor), Ken Hutcherson makes a brilliant point: Gay rights can’t be equated with his struggle as an African-American because unlike race, homosexuality is a choice. Though, regardless of whether or not one can choose their sexuality, or if granted the option, would make the decision to join a persecuted minority… One can’t help but notice Ken Hutcherson is categorically flawed in his logic. He overlooks a huge part of the law he refuses to change.

HB 2661 adds ‘sexual orientation’ to a long list of bad reasons to discriminate. Among these is “Creed”. It is already illegal to discriminate against someone based on their religious affiliation. But something doesn’t fit. Hutcherson only applied civil rights to persecuted minorities who can’t convert; don’t people change religions all the time?

Just like Hutcherson’s view of sexuality, religion is something we choose. Hutcherson himself speaks of “converting” people to Christianity. Either he feels that we as humans are capable of making the choice to “accept Jesus into our hearts” or he plans on implementing the use of force. A scenario that ultimately still depends on a personal decision. Meaning: religion is a choice.

So how do we distinguish between someone who “chooses” to be a homosexual, and someone who chooses to be a bible wielding evangelical neo-conservative? In this country, laws can’t be passed because of evidence based on one specific theology; that would violate the establishment clause of the first amendment. So, legally speaking, how can we value the views of the right over the rights of the homosexuals? Quite simply, we can’t.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


eight × 1 =